Sodom and SSM

Print More


I suppose one reason the C.S. Lewis approach to marriage has not been embraced with respect to same-sex marriage is that lurking in the background is Genesis 19. Never mind that, at least in the Jewish exegetical tradition, God did not destroy Sodom because of homosexual practices. The city has given its name to them, and so, by transitivity, any society that sanctions them should meet a like fate.

That, of course, explains the road show of Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members in Westboro Baptist Church. And it explains (some of) Pat Robertson’s periodic declarations of God’s imminent destruction of America, the most recent delivered after New York approved same-sex marriage. Now comes Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, with his own prophecy of divine wrath following Rhode Island’s passage of a civil unions bill: “Can there be any doubt that Almighty God will, in His own time and way,
pass judgment upon our state, its leaders and citizens, for abandoning
His commands and embracing public immorality?” Well, yes, there can.

Phelps & Family are universally reviled. Robertson, these days, is treated as a laughingstock. How much longer will Tobin be regarded as a serious man? Gazing out at Frenchman Bay on a crystal-clear morning, such ecclesiastical fulminators seem tiny and remote. Have they entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the search of the depth?

  • Mike Humphries (former Q Project member) and I were wondering yesterday why we have Sodomy but no Gamorrahy?

  • Nakoa

    Mark, you really need to explain yourself with the constant (SSM = Legitimacy = Common Sense = Duh!) math you keep laying down. Your constant ridicule of religious leaders for their oppposition of SSM is tiresome. (And BTW, CS Lewis almost certainly never would have supported SSM.)
    You may be right: opposition to SSM at this point may be tilting at windmillls. Nevertheless, religious doctrine should not be defined by public opinion or popularity. The prophets of old were martyred for telling people the truth about God’s laws.
    And let’s be clear what’s been going on politically over the past 20 years. It’s the SSM proponents who have imposed their narrow view of normality on everyone else, not the other way around.
    People of God should be against hate and discrimination. I therefore have no problem supporting rights for same sex couples in the form of civil unions. I would that these couples lack nothing except the ability to promote their lifestyle as legitimate through government and public education. In essence, I don’t want them promoting their “religion” of homosexuality, any more than any religion can be promoted using the state as a means.
    I suppose it’s your right (it’s your blog after all) to paint SSM as legitimate and religious folk as fools for opposing it. But I’d like to see more intelligent argument behind your points, and some acknowlegment on your part that religious leaders and people of good conscience have a legitimate basis for opposing SSM.